HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6342113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
Ordinance: 6342
File Number: 2020-0571
AMEND § 155.04 ALDERMAN APPEAL:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND § 155.04 ALDERMAN APPEAL ON BEHALF OF
RESIDENT TO USE THE PROPER TERM "COUNCIL MEMBER" AND CLARIFY WHEN
APPEALS CAN BE MADE AND TO AMEND § 155.05 APPEALS FROM PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISIONS (A) APPEALS TO CITYCOUNCIL (3) CONDITIONAL USE
REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS NEEDED FOR AN
APPEAL TO THREE MEMBERS FROM ANY WARD
WHEREAS, conditional use request decisions by the Planning Commission should be able to be
appealed for City Council review by one Council Member elected as the Ward representative in which
the property which is subject to the condition use request is located and one other Council Member;
and
WHEREAS, the term Alderman should be replaced with Council Member and this section should be
clarified so that a Council Member would be able to appeal a subdivision or development approved by
the Planning Commission on behalf of a resident to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 155.04
Alderman Appeal On Behalf of Resident by repealing it and by replacing "Alderman" with
"Council Member" and enacting the following:
"155.04 Council Member Appeal On Behalf of Resident
A Council Member may bring an appeal on behalf of any resident of the city of a decision by the
Planning Commission to approve subdivision requests (plats, lot splits), and development requests
Page 1 Printed on 815120
Ordinance: 6342
File Number: 2020-0571
(large scale developments and large or small site improvement plans). Variances, compliance with
applicable design standards, tree preservation plans and conditions of approval for any development
shall be appealed as part of the approval of a development proposal."
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 155.05
Appeals From Planning Commission Decision (A) Appeals to City Council by deleting this in
their entirety and enacting a replacement (A) as follows:
"(A) Appeals to City Council
(1) Owners of record of the property being considered may appeal a decision by the Planning
Commission to deny the following requests in accordance with the procedure set forth in §
155.02:
(a) Annexation
(b) Rezoning
(c) Required Dedication and improvements of § 155.06 (C)
(d) Subdivision (plats, lot splits, lot line adjustments)
(e) Development (large scale development, large and small site improvement plans)
(f) Vacations of street right-of-way.
(2) Conditions of Approval/Variances, etc. An owner of record may appeal the conditions of
approval determined by the Planning Commission and any adverse decision by the Planning
Commission concerning applicable design standards, tree preservation requirements,
streamside protection requirements and variance requests as part of the conditions of an
approved development request or the denial of such development request.
(3) Conditional Use Request. Three Council Members may in unison appeal a decision of the
Planning Commission approving or denying a conditional use request."
PASSED and APPROVED on 8/4/2020
Attest:
All
1 EnEVI<<E :X_
Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurei-,
,-6Q,INSps•••
i�`i; IoN ;it �,`���
Page 2 Printed on 815120
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street
/ Fayetteville, AR 72701
( (479) 575-8323
Text File
File Number: 2020-0571
Agenda Date: 8/4/2020 Version: 1 Status: Passed
In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Ordinance
Agenda Number: B 5
AMEND § 155.04 ALDERMAN APPEAL:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND § 155.04 ALDERMAN APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESIDENT TO
USE THE PROPER TERM "COUNCIL MEMBER" AND CLARIFY WHEN APPEALS CAN BE MADE
AND TO AMEND § 155.05 APPEALS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS (A)
APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL (3) CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE
REQUIREMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS NEEDED FOR AN APPEAL TO THREE MEMBERS
FROM ANY WARD
WHEREAS, conditional use request decisions by the Planning Commission should be able to be appealed for
City Council review by one Council Member elected as the Ward representative in which the property which is
subject to the condition use request is located and one other Council Member; and
WHEREAS, the term Alderman should be replaced with Council Member and this section should be clarified
so that a Council Member would be able to appeal a subdivision or development approved by the Planning
Commission on behalf of a resident to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 155.04 Alderman
Appeal On Behalf of Resident by repealing it and by replacing "Alderman" with "Council Member" and
enacting the following:
"155.04 Council Member Appeal On Behalf of Resident
A Council Member may bring an appeal on behalf of any resident of the city of a decision by the Planning
Commission to approve subdivision requests (plats, lot splits), and development requests (large scale
developments and large or small site improvement plans). Variances, compliance with applicable design
standards, tree preservation plans and conditions of approval for any development shall be appealed as part of
the approval of a development proposal."
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 155.05 Appeals From
Planning Commission Decision (A) Appeals to City Council by deleting this in their entirety and enacting a
replacement (A) as follows:
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 8/5/2020
File Number. 2020-0571
"(A) Appeals to City Council
(1) Owners of record of the property being considered may appeal a decision by the Planning Commission
to deny the following requests in accordance with the procedure set forth in § 155.02:
(a) Annexation
(b) Rezoning
(c) Required Dedication and improvements of § 155.06 (C)
(d) Subdivision (plats, lot splits, lot line adjustments)
(e) Development (large scale development, large and small site improvement plans)
(f) Vacations of street right-of-way.
(2) Conditions of Approval/Variances, etc. An owner of record may appeal the conditions of approval
determined by the Planning Commission and any adverse decision by the Planning Commission
concerning applicable design standards, tree preservation requirements, streamside protection
requirements and variance requests as part of the conditions of an approved development request or
the denial of such development request.
(3) Conditional Use Request. Three Council Members may in unison appeal a decision of the Planning
Commission approving or denying a conditional use request."
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 2 Printed on 8/5/2020
Legistar ID No.: 2020-0571
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
FOR: Council Meeting of July 21, 2020
FROM: Council Member Teresa Turk
ORDrNANCE OR RESOLUTION TITLE AND SUBJECT: _�
AN ORDINANCE.. TO AMEND SF.C11ON 155.04 ALDERMAN APPEAL ON BEHALF
OF RESIDENT TO USE TI IF. PROPER TERM "COU"NCIL MEMBER" AND CLARIFY
WHEN APPEALS CAN BE MALE AND TO AMEND § 155.05 APPEALS FROM
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS (A) APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL (3)
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO REDUCE THF. REQUIRED NUMBER OF
COUNCIL MEMBERS NEEDFD FOR AN APPEAL TO TWO
APPROVED FOR AGENDA:
Council Member Teresa Turk Date
City Attorney Kit Williams Date
4
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICE, OF THE
CITY ATTORNE)
TO: Mayor Jordan
City Council
CC: Susan Norton, Chief of Staff
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney ` _
DATE: July 6, 2020
RE: Appeals From Planning Commission Decisions
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
Jodi Backer
Paralegal
Council Member Turk requested that I draft an ordinance to reduce
the number of Council Members needed to appeal a Conditional Use Permit
to the City Council from three to two.
About the same time City Engineer Chris Brown and Developmental
Services Director Garner Stoll questioned the need or advantage of sending
vacations of utility or access easements including rights of way through the
Planning Commission. The Planning Department ensures all vacation
requests have gotten all necessary agreements from all utility and/or
adjoining or affected neighboring properties before being presented to the
Planning Commission. The Planning Department's review and
recommendation for the granting or denying of vacation request will now
go directly to the City Council which can save an applicant for the almost
always uncontroversial easement vacation substantial time.
Reducing the number of Council Members needed to sponsor an
appeal of an approved Conditional Use Permit brings this section closer to
the usual rule that a single Council Member may appeal an approval of a
development project by the Planning Commission to the City Council. The
much higher bar for an appeal of a Conditional Use Permit was enacted
around 18 years ago when the first appeal of a Conditional Use was
authorized by the City Council over a controversial issue. The high standard
was imposed as a compromise to no appeal at all to the City Council. A
decision granting a Conditional Use Permit can be appealed to Circuit Court
for a brand new hearing with the jury sitting with the same powers and
discretion possessed by the Planning Commission. Most jurors would not
even be Fayetteville citizens, so I would be concerned what their decision
might be. Therefore, I believe allowing an appeal of approved Conditional
Use Permit to the City Council by an easier means (two Council Members
rather than three Council Members) is probably advisable. Appeals by the
applicant or developer are always allowed without Council Member
assistance.
We also cleared up the current law by using the proper title of
"Council Member." We also expressly clarified that variances, compliance
with design standards, etc. would be appealed as part of the final
development approval or rejection, rather than individually during the
development review process. Individual appeals and reviews could clog up
and delay the development review process with multiple appeals of
different variances, compliance with design standards, etc. before the actual
project had been approved or rejected by the Planning Commission.
Avoiding such multiple delaying appeals is why most appeals in Circuit
Court come only after a final decision of the entire case.
z
v r (c>,-+ f A f..J
155.03 FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
155.03 Stay
An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the person in
charge of administration of the chapter certified that a stay would, in their opinion cause imminent
peril to life or property.
(Code 1965, App. A., Art. 13(3); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Code 1991, §160.173-1 Ord. No. 4100,
§2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98)
155.04 Alderman Appeal On Behalf Of Resident
An alderman may bring an appeal on behalf of any resident of the city a decision by the Planning
Commission to approve or deny the requests as set forth below.
(Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 5296, 12-15-09)
155.05 Appeals From Planning Commission Decisions
(A) Appeals to City Council.
(1) Owners of record of the property being considered may appeal a decision by the Planning
Commission to deny the following requests, in accordance with the procedures set forth
in § 155.02.
(a) Annexation
(b) Rezoning
(c) Planned Zoning District
(d) Subdivision (preliminary plat, final plat, concurrent plat,,lot split)
(e) Large scale development
(f) Vacation of utility easement, access easement, public right-of-way
(9) Commercial Design Standards
(h) Tree Preservation Plan
(i) Variances and waivers of the UDC
(2) Conditions of Approval. An owner of record may appeal the conditions of approval
determined by the Planning Commission for any of the requests listed in (A)(1).
(3) Conditional Use Request. Three (3) aldermen, two (2) of whom must reside in the
effected ward, may in unison appeal a decision by the Planning Commission approving or
denying a conditional use request.
(B) All other decisions by the Planning Commission must be appealed to Circuit Court.
(Code 1965, §13A-40, App. C., Art, II, Art. V., §B; Ord. No. 1509, 8-8-66; Ord. No. 1750. 7-6-70; Code
1991, §§156.017, 159.12, 159.54(F)(1), (2). 159.66; Ord. No. 3781. §1, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 3925,
§6, 10-3-95; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4334, 9-4-01; Ord. No. 4340, 10-2-01)
CD155:2
4
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
TO: Mayor Jordan
City Council
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
CC: Susan Norton, Chief of Staff Jodi Batker
Garner Stoll, Development Services Director Paralegal
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: July 20, 2020
RE: Amendments Proposed for §155.04 Alderman Appeal on Behalf of Resident and
Section 155.05 Appeals From Planning commission Decisions
Section 155.04 Changes
I do not have a "strike through and underline add" history for § 155.04, and it would
not be very informative if I did. First, I wanted to change "Alderman" to "Council Member" in
both the title and body of § 155.04.
Second, a Council Member is needed to assist a resident to appeal an approval of a project
or application by the Planning Commission. The applicant (or owner of record) can appeal a denial
for itself.
Third, upon the request and/or agreement of City Engineer Chris Brown and Development
Services Garner Stoll, vacations should now go directly to the City Council, and thus should not
be included in either § 155.04 or § 155.05.
Fourth, appeals of other development decisions in addition to large scale developments and
subdivisions such as large and small site improvement plans should be referenced and included for
appeal rights which I did in both § 155.04 and § 155.05.
Fifth, I included the new language: "Variances, compliance with applicable design
standards (not just Commercial Design Standards), tree preservation plan and conditions of
approval' needed to clearly group with the final approval/disapproval decision to avoid multiple
appeals over the same development proposal.
Section 155.05 Changes
Planned Zoning Districts used to be a hybrid encompassing not only rezoning, but
development approval. This was changed years ago to be strictly a zoning decision. Therefore, I
removed Planned Zoning District as it is now included within and covered by "Rezoning."
I added the Planning Commission's decision on the constitutionality of the required
dedications pursuant to Rough Proportionality of the impact of such development upon the City `s
infrastructure needs (155.06(c)) if an owner of record or applicant wanted to appeal that decision
to the City Council.
I expanded (e) "Large Scale Development" to add small site and large site improvement
plans which can be appealed to and decided by the Planning Commission. Vacations were removed
since they would go directly to the City Council so no appeal from the Planning Commission could
occur.
I expanded subsection (2) "Conditions of Approval" to also include adverse variance
decisions, all design standards (not just commercial design standards), tree preservation
requirements and conditions of approval.
Finally, I complied with Council Member Turk's request in (3) to reduce the number of
Council Members needed to appeal the Planning Commission's decision on a conditional use from
three to two.
Please let me know if you have any further questions about these proposed
changes.
2
GvIe"-) Ht7L.(,�k'kA c:4�yy
155.03 FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
155.03 Stay
An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the person in
charge of administration of the chapter certified that a stay would, in their opinion cause imminent
peril to life or property.
(Code 1965, App. A., Art. 13(3); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Code 1991, §160.173; Ord. No. 4100,
§2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98)
155.04 Alder n Appeal On Behalf Of Resident
An alde"an may bring an appeal on behalf of any resident of the city a decision by the Planning
Commission to approve or deny the requests as set forth below.
(Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 5296, 12-15-09)
155.05 Appeals From Planning Commission Decisions
(A) Appeals to City Council.
(1) Owners of record of the property being considered may appeal a decision by the Planning
Commission to deny the following requests, in accordance with the procedures set forth
in § 155.02.
(a) Annexation
(b) Rezoning f
(c) lanned Zoning District ���r v l 7 ✓1 / Kc
(d) Subdivision (preliminary plat, final plat, concurrent plat,, lot split)
(e) Large scale development
�e Y� fl (f) Vacation of utility easement, access easement, -public_right-of-way�
(9) Commercial Design Standards o °"_`j %»"� ° �
(h) Tree Preservation Plan ""�`l �J nn� 4` P�,h oL �,�lr�;,,•1 1/'t"^
(i) Variances and waivers of the UDC � � J� o7'iL��ea odd al
eXeAltid"
�� ,� (2) Conditions of Approval. An owner of record may appeal the conditions of approval
X� `� determined by the Planning Commission for any of the requests listed in (A)(1).
�rNf �dtw,��y
(3) Conditional Use Request. Three (3) aldermen, two (2) of whom must reside in the r
effected ward, may in unison appeal a decision by the Planning Commission approving or
2- denying a conditional use request.
(B) All other decisions by the Planning Commission must be appealed to Circuit Court.
(Code 1965, §13A-40, App. C., Art. II, Art. V., §B; Ord. No. 1509, 8-8-66; Ord. No. 1750, 7-6-70; Code
1991, §§156.017, 159.12, 159.54(F)(1), (2), 159.66; Ord. No. 3781, §1, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 3925,
§6, 10-3-95; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4334, 9-4-01; Ord. No. 4340, 10-2-01)
C D 155:2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 155.04 ALDERMAN APPEAL ON BEHALF OF
RESIDENT TO USE THE PROPER TERM "COUNCIL MEMBER" AND CLARIFY WHEN
APPEALS CAN BE MADE AND TO AMEND § 155.05 APPEALS FROM PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISIONS (A) APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL (3) CONDITIONAL USE
REQUEST TO REDUCE THE' REQUIRED NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS NEEDED
FOR AN APPEAL TO TWO
WHEREAS, conditional use request decisions by the Planning Commission should be able to be
appealed for City Council review by one Council Member elected as the Ward representative in
which the property which is subject to the condition use request is located and one other Council
Member; and
WHEREAS, the term Alderman should be replaced with Council Member and this section
should be clarified so that a Council Member would be able to appeal a subdivision or
development approved by the Planning Commission on behalf of a resident to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 155.04
Alderman Appeal On Behalf of Resident by repealing it and by replacing "Alderman" with
"Council Member" and enacting the following:
"155.04 Council Member Appeal On Behalf of Resident
A Council Member may bring an appeal on behalf of any resident of the city of a decision by the
Planning Commission to approve subdivision requests (plats, lot splits), and development
requests (large scale developments and large or small site improvement plans). Variances,
compliance with applicable design standards, tree preservation plans and conditions of approval
for any development shall be appealed as part of the approval of a development proposal."
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 155.05
Appeals From Planning Commission Decision (A) Appeals to City Council by deleting this in
their entirety and enacting a replacement (A) as follows:
"(A) Appeals to City Council
(1) Owners of record of the property being considered may appeal a decision by the Planning
Commission to deny the following requests in accordance with the procedure set forth in
§ 155.02:
(a) Annexation
(b) Rezoning
(c) Required Dedication and improvements of § 155.06 (C)
(d) Subdivision (plats, lot splits, lot line adjustments)
(e) Development (large scale development, large and small site improvement plans)
(2) Conditions of Approval/Yariances, etc. An owner of record may appeal the conditions of
approval determined by the Planning Commission and any adverse decision by the
Planning Commission concerning applicable design standards, tree preservation
requirements, streamside protection requirements and variance requests as part of the
conditions of an approved development request or the denial of such development
request.
(3) Conditional Use Request. Two Council Members, one of whom must reside in the
affected ward, may in unison appeal a decision of the Planning Commission approving or
denying a conditional use request."
PASSED and APPROVED this 21 st day of July, 2020.
am
,TTEST:
DER K
FAYE-T
KARA PAXTON, Ci y Clerk/Treasyref LE •
Ule-
+
CityClerk
From: CityClerk
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:54 AM
To: Kyle Smith
Subject: RE: Minutes of Appeals Ordinance 4334
Kyle,
Thank you for your email regarding AMEND § 155.04 ALDERMAN APPEAL. Per your request our office will add the below
minutes to this item as additional information.
2001-09-04 Pages 2-4
2001-07-17 Pages 2-3
2001-07-03 Pages 7-9
Thank you,
1(owal Pa xto-w
City Clerk Treasurer
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
kaoaxton(aUavetteville-ar.aov
T 479.575.8323
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
From: Kyle Smith <citycouncil@kyle4fay.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:17 PM
To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov>
Subject: Minutes of Appeals Ordinance 4334
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
Kara,
Here are the segments of minutes regarding the passage of "Appeal" Ordinance 4334 that are relevant to our current
item 2020-0571. 1 have not attached them here, but I had them up so I included links (if they work). Would you please
add this history to the packet and distribute it to the Council for the next meeting?
2001-09-04 Pages 2-4
2001-07-17 Pages 2-3
2001-07-03 Pages 7-9
Thank you!
Kyle Smith
Council Member
Ward 4 Position 2
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
citycouncil@kyle4fay.org
479.274.8881
Facebook I Twitter I Website
0 03 1
City Council Minutes
July 3, 2001
Page 7
Mr. McKinney stated that was a factor in the equation. It was not just the direct income by payment
of lease holding, they also had to look at the side benefit that this business provided to their traffic
count the tower. It would affect them next year.
Alderman Thiel stated she thought this was a win win situation and in the long run would pay for
itself.
Alderman Trumbo moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Thiel seconded the motion.
Upon role call the motion carried by "a vote of 6-1-0, Jordan voting nay.
RESOLUTION 96-01 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
APPEAL: An ordinance amending Chapter 155, Appeals, to allow an appeal by three aldermen of
a decision by the Planning Commission to approve or deny a conditional use. The ordinance was
left on the first reading at the June 19, 2001 meeting.
Alderman Trumbo moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Davis
seconded the motion. Upon'roll call the motion carried unanimously.(,
r
Mr. Williams read the ordinance for the second time. He reminded the council that they might want
to have a motion to delete section two. . . ) , • � .,?, I , .
Alderman Trumbo moved to delete section two, emergency clause. Alderman Jordan seconded
the motion. '
Ms. Paula Marinoni, an area resident, stated this had come out of a request from Central United
Methodist Church for a parking lot. Preservationists and neighbors had opposed this. The church
had a plan which had been approved in 1995 which had not been taken into consideration. The
request had been voted in at Planning Commission. Alderman Davis and Trumbo had brought this
forward for consideration. There was a State law which determined that Conditional Uses went from
the Planning Commission to Circuit Court. This had always been the law, as far as she knew.
Everyone else that had come before had been told their only opinion was to take it to Circuit Court.
She had been told this five years ago. She could not believe that they could not take it to City
Council. A citizen should have the right to appeal to their own governing body before taking it to
Circuit Court. Five years ago when she questioned this, she had been told by State Representative
Sue Madison that this was an old law and should be changed, but it was the law. That was the way
it had always been presented to other entities who wanted to challenge. She did not think that they
had the authority to pass the ordinance. The city attorney had sited other ordinances in Arkansas
where other cities had appealed their conditional uses to the city council. Just because someone else
was doing something did not make it legal. The fact that no one had ever challenged them did not
make it right. She questioned what the State Law was. After the last meeting, she contacted their
0003`t
City Council Minutes
July 3, 2001
Page 8
State Representive, Jan Judy, and asked her for an Attorney General opinion. She presented the
request to the Attorney General. The request had been assigned to an attorney who would work on
this. It had a rush on it. She asked them to leave the item on this reading and/or table it until the
opinion came in. She did not believe the opinion would be in before the two weeks. This was not
an emergency and they had the time to wait. She had also asked in the opinion if they could use the
city trolley to help with the churches or.. Sundays and the merchants on Dickson Street and
downtown.
Mr. Richard Maynard, an area resident, stated he was concerned about this because it changed
something that was not a policy decision. Ile did not think it was the no brainer that it appeared to
be. It was a burden that they would be taking on. This was not a policy decision. It was someone
asking the city for a break. He did not see any problem with the process ending at Planning
Commission. He could see some problems with this being an appeal. This was basically, just taking
a second look at it. If it was an appeal, they would not be just looking at the whole thing again, but
they would be looking at on whether the findings of fact were followed. He thought that would put
the burden on whoever was appealing that they had to come to them with specific fault in the
findings and fact. It would get rid of frivolous appeals. He did not believe he would have a problem
finding three aldermen to appeal the decision for him, however, if they had point out where they
went wrong and where they disagreed with their finding of fact. He encouraged them to have stricter
guidelines. As a citizen, he was afraid they were getting into micro managing. They things he would
rather them micro manage was their money. He saw many things put on the consent agenda for large
sums of money that he was not sure why they were on there. His concern was that once they had a
contentious conditional use appeal more things would be put on the consent agenda He felt they
were taking on a lot of work.
Alderman Trumbo stated that when he called the other cities which did appeal their conditional uses
to the city council, he had asked the kinds and volumes. They had replied that they were rare.
Mr. Huge Emest, Urban Development Director, stated the city of Little Rock had very few appeals
and they were usually regarding the use of manufactured homes.
Mr. Maynard stated he felt the Planning Commission looked at the Conditional Uses more carefully
than they did the rezoning, which automatically came to them.
Alderman Santos stated he had assumed that with the appeal they would have to cite specific
ordinances or things from the general plan that showed where the Planning Commission decision
was not in line.
Mr. Williams stated he had placed this within the same paragraph that allowed the decision of the
Planning Commission to be appealed to the: City Council. All of the other provisions allowed an
alderman to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. There was nothing in here that
r �
0003'73
City Council Minutes t
July 3, 200.1
Page 9
required any particular thing to be cited beyond what was already in the appeals section. In reference
to comments made earlier from Ms. Marinoni he quoted from the State Law regarding the functions
of the Board of Adjustments and not the PIanning Commission regarding the appeal of variances.
Variances from the Board of Adjustments had to be appealed to the Circuit Court. Under another
statute they were given the authority to change their ordinances.
THE ORDINANCE WAS LEFT ON THE SECOND READING.
NEW BUSINESS .
ZONING DISTRICTS: An ordinance amending Chapter 160, Zoning Districts, and Chapter 161,
Zoning Regulations, of the Unified Development Ordinance to include additional multi -family
zoning districts, RMF-6, RM9-12, and RMF-18.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance for the first time.
Alderman Santos moved to suspend the rules and move to the second reading. Alderman
Davis seconded the motion. Upon roil call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance for the'second time.
Alderman Davis moved to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.
Alderman Zurcher seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams stated the Council did pass this ordinance several months ago, but the ordinance did
not have the proper definitions. They had to go back and put the proper definitions in.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed
unanimously.
ORDINANCE 4325 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
SKATE PARK: A resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Division to apply for up to
$200,000 (50150 matching funds) in grant money for the development of a skate park.
Mr. Eric -Schuldt, Parks and Reereatior% staied the Skate Park idea had been brought up years ago.
The Parks and Recreation.had been working on it for two and a half years. It was originally in the
CIP for 2000. They had $75,000 allocated to start that project. Staff knew at that time they would
need more hinds at a future date. Xntil they got to.the community involvement process and a
consultant hired they did not know the direction to go:- There were many different ways to build a
park. They could build a wood, steel or concrete park.. They had formed a subcommitee. The
subcommittee'recommended a concrete park. It was traditionally what was being built. It was the
0003 ry
City Council Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 2
WOMEN'S SHELTER: A resolution approving a lease agreement with the Project for Victim's
of Family Violence, to lease city land for the construction of a new Battered Women's Shelter.
RESOL UTION 104-01 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT: A resolution approving the application for
the 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of $36,058.00. The total project is
$40,065.00 and requires a 10% City match of $4,007.00. This grant will be used for the purchase
of video equipment to place in patrol cars.
RESOLUTION 105-01 AS RECORDED IIV' THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
Alderman Zurcher moved to approve the consent agenda. Alderman Santos seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gary Lowery, an area resident, stated July 1, 1991, the City passed a pass through fee of fifteen
cents per month to the water customers for the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, Act 1053. In 1993
this provision was increased on June 20, 1993, by ten cents. That increase now, accumulatively, is
twenty-five cents. It was not a pass through resolution of twenty-five cents that they should be
discussing, it should be a pass through increase of ten cents, not twenty-five cents. It should be an
inclusion of the fifteen cents plus the ten cents, which would be twenty-five cents. They were
making a pass through of twenty-five cents. The city had neglected State law for ten years by not
having it printed on the water bills.
OLD BUSINESS
APPEAL: An ordinance amending Chapter 155, Appeals, to allow an appeal by three aldermen of
a decision by the Planning Commission to approve or deny a conditional use. The ordinance was
amended and left on the second reading at zhe July 3, 2001 meeting.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance for the third time.
Alderman Davis asked if they had heard anything back from the Attorney General's office.
Mr. Williams stated he had called the Attorney General's office to see where the request was. The
person who did their zoning opinions was on vacation and would not be back until the first of
August. They could not assure him that they would have an opinion by the seventh. He did not
when they would have an opinion back to him.
Mr. Mort Gitelman, 1229 West Lake Ridge Drive, stated he had served eighteen years on the City
Planning Commission during the late 1960 through the mid 1980's. About thirty years ago they did
a major revision of the Fayetteville Zoning Ordinance. They had debated the suitability of appeals
City Council Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 3
and conditional use permits from the Planning Commission to the City Council. He had been
teaching land use law for thirty-six years, the.vast majority of cities did not allow appeals from the
Planning Commission'on Conditional Use permits, but there was nothing in Arkansas law that
prevented them from allowing such appeals if they wanted to amend the ordinance. There were a
lot of good reasons not to. The basic reason is that if they understand the theory of the conditional
use permit. It makes the Planning Commission an administrative agency of the city. The Planning
Commission had approximately ten standards they were supposed to look to in whether or not to
grant a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission was to apply those standards. Once they
started allowing appeals of conditional use requests to the city council, they might be opening a box
that they might not want to. They would encourage a lot of appeals. If they stopped to consider all
the conditional uses allowed in the zoning ordinance, for example, home occupations and duplexes.
Many of the conditional use requests were controversial. The incentive for the Planning
Commission to not to devote full attention to resolving those issues at the administrative level,
would mean that they would start coming to the council. The City of Little Rock did allow appeals
to the city council. He did not believe the city staff and city attorney are very happy with the process
down there. There was no appeal from the Board of Adjustments on variances. State law prohibits
it. It was the same sort of thing. The Board of Adjustment hears the individual facts and cases and
decided on whether or not to'grarit a variance. 9There was no appeal to the legislative body of the
city. It went to court. He thought the conditional use permit was very much the same sort of thing.
They should look at the Planning Commission as one of their administrative agencies that they had
given them the power to apply those standards in the -ordinance to individual requests. He stated it
would be unwise to change the procedure. He was sure their meetings were long enough as it was.
This did not mean the Planning Commission was always going to be right.
s
Alderman Thiel moved to table the item until they had a decision from the Attorney General.
Alderman Zurcher seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE WAS TABLED.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mayor Coody stated the next three items were related to each other, but they would be addressing
each one individually.
SPECIAL SALES TAX ELECTION: An ordinance calling a special election to decide whether
or not to approve a three -fourths cent (1/40) sales and use tax to fund the issuance of not to exceed
one hundred twenty-five million dollars of Capital Improvement Bonds to finance all or a portion
of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, extending, improving and equipping of wastewater
treatment plants, sewerage and related facilities.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance for the first time.
0004316%
Page 2
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 4, 2001
protect and preserve what they had downtown_
Mrs. Bootsie Ackerman, DDEP, stated she hoped that they could use this information to overlay with
the earlier data that they had when the stated the project to see how far that they had come in five
years and help them plan the next five years.
CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Approval of the minutes from the August 21, 2001 meeting.
SFCDC: A resolution approving the transfer of the property located at 1035 S. Washington Avenue
from the City of Fayetteville to the South Fayetteville Community Development Corporation. The
funding source for this property purchase was the 2001 HUD Community Development Block Grant.
RESOL UTION 12 0- 01 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC
ARVEST BANK: A resolution accepting a proposal from Arvest Bank to provide banking services
for the City of Fayetteville for one year, renewable for four years.
RESOLUTION 121-01 AS RECORDED IV THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
GRANT ACCEPTANCE: A resolution accepting 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
Award and agreement to the assurances and certifications and the approval of a budget adjustment.
RESOLUTION 122-01 AS RECORDED IV THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
AIRFIELD PAVEMENT REHABILITATION: A resolution accepting the low bid of
$2,555,442.65 from McClinton -Anchor for the Airfield Pavement Rehabilitation Project. A 5%
contingency fee is also included in the total cost of the project. The total project cost is $2,849,608;
and approval of a budget adjustment.
RESOL UTION 123-01 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Alderman Zurcher moved to approve the consent agenda. Alderman Jordan seconded. Upon
roll call the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL: An ordinance amending Chapter 155, Appeals, to allow an
appeal by three aldermen of a decision by the Planning Commission to approve or deny a conditional
1
1
000437
Page 3 .
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 4, 2001
use. The ordinance was tabled on the third reading at the July 17, 2001 meeting until the Attorney
General's opinion was received.
Alderman Young stated there were two sides to this. His opinion and the majority of the people that
he had spoken with believed that it would be best to have a recourse to the City Council.
Alderman Santos stated the only real complaint that he had heard was for the appeals to be based on
specific finding by the Planning Commission. The way it had been explained to him was that it had
to be a de novo appeal. They did not really consider anything that happened at the Planning
Commission level. 4 `
Mr. Williams stated the other appeal to them were primarily were de novo, when they looked at the
other three things that were allowed to be appealed. He thought they could setup the appeals any
way they wanted to.
Alderman Young stated for practicality they probably needed to spell out the reasons for appeal.
Mr. Williams stated the Planning Commission had specific guidelines for Conditional uses. They
could identify the ones that they disagreed with.
Ms. Paula Marinoni, an area resident, stated she had requested the Attorney General's opinion
through State Representative Jan Judy. She stated this had always been presented that this was the
law and never before had there been an uproar because someone had been affected by it. She had
seen this as an affront on those people who had been adversely affected by this in the past. Her
original issue was that she felt it was inappropriate for two alderman from,an outside ward to try and
change the law because it affected one particular group when this had never been an issue before.
Now that the opinion had come back in the favor that this is possible, she was glad. It should be
possible for a citizen to appeal to the council and not have to go to Circuit Court. The nature of a
conditional use, they were asking for a use in a ward or zone that is not normally accepted in that
zoned. The people most likely affected are the people who would not have the means to go to
Circuit Court. If they would consider at time the request for three aldermen to bring it forward. She
did not want to see this being away to get around the Planning Commission. She suggested the
aldermen appealing the conditional use should be from the ward affected, at the very least one person
from that ward.
Alderman Zurcher moved to amend the ordinance requiring two of the three aldermen be
from the Ward affected. Alderman Santos seconded.
Alderman Thiel stated she wanted to make this difficult. She had a lot of concerns and reservations
about doing this. She did like the idea of requiring two aldermen from the ward affected.
Q0043a Page
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 4, 2001
Alderman Young stated there was a danger in making it to difficult.
Alderman Thiel stated the only reason she was supporting it was because she had seen where
neighborhoods had been affect and they did not have the means to hire an attorney and fight. If they
did not make it difficult, they would have every conditional use appeal. She felt this was taking
power away from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hugh Ernest, Urban Development Director, stated he had called Little Rock and asked them to
check the number of appeals of conditional uses. Over a year period there had been twelve and
fourteen. The majority of them were manufactured housing. It was a singular right of the applicant
to make the appeal with no requirement to secure votes from any aldermen or active Board of
Directors. He pointed out the use of appeal was not that common. If the Planning Commission did
their job and followed the technical conditions that were required for a conditional use, it was usually
apparent to the applicant that it was going to stand on its merit.
Alderman Santos stated he supported this because it made the City Council more responsive. It give
the people more of a chance. It made them more accountable to the people and having the two
alderman from the ward appeal the conditional use made them more accountable to the people of
their ward. He added supporting this appeal did not mean that he would vote for it when it came
before council. He was willing to listen.
Mayor Coody asked shall the amendment pass. Upon roll call the motion carried by a vote of
6~1-0. Trumbo voting nay.
Mr. Feinstein, an area resident, asked if they had an establishment that was moving from one area
to another who would be the affected area
Alderman Young stated it would be the land.
Mr. Feinstein asked why they were limiting it to only conditional uses.
Alderman Zurcher stated other appeals were allowed.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed by a vote
of 6-1-0. Trumbo voting nay.
ORDINANCE 4334 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CFIT CLERK.
NEW BUSINESS
NORTHWEST ARKAN AS
Democrat 4 (gazette
:.vr.
�tr
.,.1'_. _T-ry,ti E ")..m.:„ .t',, r,,:;.62c_r1,• ':•Tti',".,1 yW?DG.CL•`1
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Brittany Smith, do solemnly swear that I am the Accounting Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette, a daily newspaper printed and published in said County, State of Arkansas; that I was so
related to this publication at and during the publication of the annexed legal advertisement
the matter of: Notice pending in the Court, in said County, and at the dates of
the several publications of said advertisement stated below, Ordinance:6342 the City of Fayeneville,Arkansas
and that during said periods and at said dates, said newspaper File Number: 2020-0571 hereby amends§ 155.05 Appeals From
AMEND§155.04 ALDERMAN Planning Commission Decision(A)
was printed and had a bona fide circulation in said County; APPEAL: Appeals to City Council by deleting
that said newspaper had been regularly printed andpublished AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND§ this in their entirety and enacting a
g y 155.04 ALDERMAN APPEAL ON replacement(A)as follows:
in said County, and had a bona fide circulation therein for the BEHALF OF RESIDENT TO USE "(A)Appeals to City Council
THE PROPER TERM"COUNCIL (1) Owners of record of the
period of one month before the date of the first publication of MEMBER"AND CLARIFY WHEN property being considered may appeal
said advertisement; and that said advertisement was published APPEALS CAN BE MADE AND a decision by the Planning
TO AMEND§155.05 APPEALS Commission to deny the following
in the regular daily issues of said newspaper as stated below. FROM PLANNING COMMISSION requests in accordance with the
DECISIONS(A)APPEALS TO procedure set forth in§155.02
CITY COUNCIL(3) (a) Annexation
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST (b) Rezoning
City of Fayetteville TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT (c) Required Dedication and
Ord 6342 OF COUNCIL MEMBERS NEEDED improvements of§ 155.06(C)
FOR AN APPEAL TO THREE (d) Subdivision(plats,lot
MEMBERS FROM ANY WARD splits,lot line adjustments)
WHEREAS,conditional use request (e) Development(large scale
decisions by the Planning development,large and small site
Was inserted in the Regular Edition on: Commission should be able to be improvement plans)
appealed for City Council review by (() Vacations of strait nght-
August 9, 2020 one Council Member elected as the of-way.
Ward representative in which the (2) Conditions of
property which is subject to the Approval/Variances,etc. An owner of
Publication Charges: $237.12 condition use request is located and record may appeal the conditions of
one other Council Member;and approval determined by the Planning
WHEREAS,the term Alderman Commission and any adverse decision
should be replaced with Council by the Planning Commission
Member and this section should be concerning applicable design
clarified so that a Council Member standards,tree preservation
I� would be able to appeal a subdivision requirements,streamside protection
Brittany Smith or development approved by the requirements and variance requests as
Planning Commission on behalf of a part of the conditions of an approved
resident to the City Council. development request or the denial of
Subscribed and sworn to before me NOW THEREFORE,BE IT such development request.
ORDAINED BY THE CITY (3) Conditional Use Request.
This ( Z day of , 2020. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Three Council Members may in unison
U FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS: appeal a decision of the Planning
Section I. That the City Council of Commission approving or denying a
the City of Fayeneville,Arkansas conditional use request."
hereby amends§155.04 Alderman PASSED and APPROVED on
Appeal On Behalf of Resident by 8/4/2020
repealing it and by replacing Approved:
✓'1 V !W (ik& J % "Alderman"with"Council Member" Lioneld Jordan,Mayor
and enacting the following: Attest:
Notary Public "155.04 Council Member Appeal On Kara Paxton,City Clerk Treasurer
Behalf of Resident 75305751 Aug 9,2020
My Commission Expires: frik lio A Council Member may bring an
�S�P 12 �112 appeal on behalf of any resident of the
r\h rN� 2 20W5 city ofa decision by the Planning
• ��t\';\c�7\�\any t '� r ` Commission to approve subdivision
„ G 6` -.F"' .,r1•-,%' requests(plats,lot splits),and
,4.:::.` N\F AY`;,-..,,�c ,.-' development requests
: (large scale developments and large
or small site improvement plans)
**NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit Variances,compliance with
applicable design standards,tree
Invoice will be sent. preservation plans and conditions of
approval for any development shall be
appealed as part of the approval of a
development proposal."
Section 2. That the City Council of